<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2018 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'A second tower?',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<section id="drudgery">
	<h2>Drudgery</h2>
	<p>
		My discussion post for the day:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			This week, I chose an article on a particular patent issue, written by Catherine Offord.
			<a href="http://catherineofford.com/">Catherine Offord</a> is a science writer who, among other things, writes for a website called <a href="https://www.the-scientist.com/">The Scientist</a>.
		</p>
		<p>
			The article focusses on a case in which a researcher conducting cancer research was required to cancel their research due to patents owned by a selfish company that cares more for making money than helping people.
			And what, do you suppose was patented?
			Certain genes!
			Natural genes found in some humans, not &quot;invented&quot; by anyone, are &quot;owned&quot; by this greedy company.
			In my opinion, the whole concept of patents is terrible.
			However, whatever your view, I doubt you agree that something not invented at all, but simply existing in nature, should be patented and someone given a monopoly over it.
			Thankfully, a case was organised against the noxious company and in a few years, the judged ruled just that: patents on naturally-occurring genes are now invalid.
		</p>
		<p>
			This is far from the only time patents have hindered innovation though, either in the medical field or in other fields.
			In fact, that&apos;s pretty much what patents do: forbid people from building off of certain ideas.
			The article also talks about the struggle between people that want to innovate and people that want to use patents to create artificial monopolies for themselves.
			University researchers, in particular, are shying away from potential innovations because of pressure from the schools; the schools are putting the pressure on because of fear of patent liability.
		</p>
		<p>
			The article then continues, showing the other side of the argument.
			It wouldn&apos;t be very complete if it didn&apos;t show both sides.
			It tells of some people that claim patent abuse is rare and that innovation doesn&apos;t take place when things can&apos;t be properly patented.
			It&apos;s hard to put into words how much I find that ridiculous, but I think this comic sums it up pretty nicely:
		</p>
		<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_3.0/mimiandeunice.com./ME_446_LegalExistence.png" alt="Without copyright law ... art would not exist! Without patent law ... inventions would not exist! Without real estate law ... land would not exist! Without marriage law ... love would not exist!" class="framed-centred-image" width="2400" height="747"/>
		<p>
			(Comic strip (Paley, 2011) provided by Nina Paley&apos;s Mimi and Eunice.
			This strip was released under the terms of the {$a['CC BY-SA 3.0']} license, which means the artist has given permission for everyone to reuse it.)
		</p>
		<p>
			The article does point out though that without patents, more innovations could end up as trade secrets.
			Trade secrets aren&apos;t quite as bad for innovation as patents, but unlike patents, they have no expiration date.
		</p>
		<p>
			I&apos;d recommend this article to people that are concerned with politics, innovation, the future of society, and/or the medical field.
			It&apos;s certainly a very interesting read if you&apos;re into those things, though I suspect some people might find the article a bit boring.
		</p>
		<div class="APA_references">
			<h2>References:</h2>
			<p>
				Offord, C. (2016, June 1). Do Patents Promote or Stall Innovation? Retrieved from <a href="https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46126/title/Do-Patents-Promote-or-Stall-Innovation-/"><code>https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46126/title/Do-Patents-Promote-or-Stall-Innovation-/</code></a>
			</p>
			<p>
				Paley, N. (2011, August 23). Legal Fictions « Mimi and Eunice. Retrieved from <a href="https://mimiandeunice.com/2011/08/23/legal-fictions/"><code>https://mimiandeunice.com/2011/08/23/legal-fictions/</code></a>
			</p>
		</div>
	</blockquote>
</section>
<section id="Minetest">
	<h2>Minetest</h2>
	<img src="/y.st./source/y.st./static/img/CC_BY-SA_3.0/minetest.net./weblog/2018/03/08.png" alt="Pinewood Tower" class="framed-centred-image" width="800" height="600"/>
	<p>
		The tower&apos;s been constructed.
		I still need a lot more snow to put around the edges though.
		To top it off, the tower has twelve floors, and I don&apos;t even know what to do with them all.
		The tower, quite frankly, is too tall.
		It has to be that tall though to make use of the space created when I dug out the mountain to create a flat spot.
		The mountain&apos;s incredibly steep.
		This was a <strong>*terrible*</strong> construction site.
		Still, given what I had to work with, I regret nothing.
	</p>
	<p>
		My next challenge, aside from amassing the vast quantity of snow I need to complete the tower grounds, will be figuring out how to create a path <strong>*to*</strong> the tower without damaging the area too much.
		I&apos;ve made things work up to this point by setting my <code>/home</code> location within tower property and using tall staircases to get up to the tops of the trees just outside the premises.
		From there, I can slowly hike downward.
		There&apos;s no good way to get to the tower without warping though.
		I could build a bridge over the trees, but it&apos;d look stupid making its way down toward the water.
		Unless ... I build a second tower.
		The second tower could be more accessible, and the bridge could connect the two.
		That means more rooms though.
		I&apos;ve already got too many rooms.
		Still, I think this might be the best option I&apos;ve got.
		The tower would need to be right where my temporary, artificial island is though.
		I&apos;ll need to tear that up and move it.
		At least the second tower won&apos;t need to be as tall as the first.
		It only needs to be tall enough to reach a bridge over the trees at the lowest point in the forest.
		Now ... what material do I use?
		I could build a second pinewood tower, but I could also use something different that I have on hand, such as stone bricks.
		I don&apos;t currently have the pinewood I&apos;d need to go that route, but by the time I have the snow I need, I&apos;ll have far more than enough pinewood.
		The stone bricks would add variety though, so I&apos;ll probably do that.
		How did I end up tied up in the over world aspects of the game?
		I&apos;m a miner.
	</p>
</section>
END
);
